In the past, various types of endocardial leads and electrodes have been introduced into different chambers of a patient's heart, including among other locations, the right ventricle, right atrial appendage, and atrium, as well as the coronary sinus. These flexible leads are often composed of an insulator sleeve that contains an implanted helical coil conductor that is attached to an electrode tip. This electrode is placed in contact with myocardial tissue by passage through a venous access, often the subclavian vein or one of its tributaries, which leads to the endocardial surface of the heart chambers. The tip with the electrode contact is held in place by trabeculations of myocardial tissue. In some cases, active fixation leads are fastened by screw into the myocardial tissue.
The tips of many available leads often include flexible tines, wedges, or finger-like projections which extend radially outward and usually are molded from and integral with the insulating sheath of the lead. These tines or protrusions allow surrounding growth of tissue in chronically implanted leads to fix the electrode tip in position in the heart and prevent dislodgement of the tip during the life of the lead. In “acute placement” of the electrode or lead tip, a blood clot forms about the flanges or tines (due to enzymes released as a result of irritation of the trabeculations of myocardial tissue by the presence of the electrode tip) until scar tissue eventually forms, usually in three to six months. The tines or wedges or finger-like projections allow better containment by the myocardial trabeculations of muscle tissue and prevent early dislodgement of the lead tip.
Although the state of the art in implemented pulse generator or pacemaker technology and endocardial lead technology has advanced considerably, endocardial leads nevertheless occasionally fail, due to a variety of reasons, including breakage of a lead, insulation breaks, breakage of the inner helical coil conductor and an increase in electrode resistance. Furthermore, in some instances, it may be desirable to electronically stimulate different portions of the heart than are presently being stimulated with the leads already implanted. There are a considerable number of patients who have one or more, and sometimes as many as four or five, unused leads in their veins and heart.
Although it obviously would be desirable to easily remove such unused leads, in the past surgeons usually have avoided attempts to remove inoperative leads because the risk of removing them exceeded the risk of leaving them in. The risks of leaving unused myocardial leads in the heart and venous path include increased likelihood that an old lead may facilitate infection, which in turn may necessitate removal of the lead to prevent continued bacteremia and abcess formation. Furthermore, there is an increased likelihood of the formation of blood clots in the atrial chamber about entangled leads. Such clots may embolize to the lung and produce severe complications and even fatality. Furthermore, the presence of unused leads in the venous pathway and inside the heart can cause considerable difficulty in the positioning and attachment of new endocardial leads in or to the heart.
Removal of an inoperative lead sometimes can be accomplished by applying traction and rotation to the outer free end of the lead, but only if done prior to fixation of the lead tip in the trabeculations of myocardial tissue by scar tissue formation or large clot development. Even then, it is possible that a clot has formed so the removal of the leads causes various sized emboli to pass to the lungs, producing severe complications.
In cases where the lead tip has become attached by scar tissue to the myocardial wall, removal of the lead always has presented problems and risks. Porous lead tips that are sometimes used may have an in-growth of scar tissue attaching them to the myocardial wall. Sufficient traction on such leads in a removal attempt could cause disruption of the myocardial wall prior to release of the embedded lead tip. The tines or flanges of other types of leads that are not tightly scarred to the myocardial wall present similar risks. Even if screw-in tip electrodes are used, wherein the tips theoretically can be unscrewed from the myocardial wall, unscrewing of such tips may be prevented by a channel of scar tissue and endothelium that surrounds the outer surface of the lead along the venous pathway. Such “channel scar” tissue prevents withdrawal because of tight encasement of the lead. Continual strong pulling or twisting of the outer free end of the lead could cause rupture of the atrial wall or the ventricular wall if there is such tight circumferential encasement of adherent channel scar tissue in the venous path. Such tight encasement by scar tissue in the venous pathway and in the trabeculations of the myocardial wall typically occurs within six months to a year of the initial placement of the lead.
The risks of removing the lead by such traction and rotation of the lead may be high enough so that, if it becomes imperative that the lead be removed (as in the case of infection), many surgeons have elected to open the patient's chest and surgically remove the lead rather than attempt removal by applying traction and rotation thereto.
Clearly, there is a need for an apparatus for extracting endocardial leads from a patient's body with minimized risk to the patient.